2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. B As of December 26, 2016, the Plaintiff bears the tax liability of KRW 00,000,000 in total as indicated below, as of December 26, 2016.

B. On February 9, 2015, EB, EE, E, E, E, E, and EF, the Defendant and its wife died on or around February 2015, 2015: (a) on February 9, 2015, EB, E, E, E, E, E, E, and EF agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant real property”) to solely own the real property indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant division agreement”).

C. Accordingly, as to the instant real estate on April 13, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 9, 2015 in the Defendant’s future on the grounds of inheritance due to the consultation and division, and thereafter, on May 29, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage amounting to the obligor, Inc., ZZZ, the maximum debt amount, KRW 00,000,000 in the future regarding the instant real estate.

D. At the time of the split-off consultation, BB’s active property was the reason for the instant real estate share ownership.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of right to revoke a fraudulent act;

In principle, in cases where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against a general creditor by giving up his/her right to his/her inherited property while holding a divided agreement on inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da26633, Jul. 10, 2014).

The Plaintiff’s taxation claim prior to the Plaintiff’s order against the Defendant becomes a preserved claim for the obligee’s exercise of the obligee’s right to revoke the instant split-off agreement. The instant split-off agreement constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general obligee of the BB, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, inasmuch as the instant split-off agreement constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff’s general obligee.

In regard to this, the defendant, from around 2005 to around 2005, given that the defendant gave a loan to B in excess of KRW 00,000,000,000 to ever, the defendant renounced his share of inheritance instead of paying the defendant's debt. Therefore, the division agreement in this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, but did not have the intention of B and the defendant to know.

As seen earlier, this case’s split-off agreement did not have any other active property than the share of the instant real estate to B at the time of the instant split-off agreement. In a case where the obligor’s assets are insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s assets, barring any special circumstance, if the obligor offered the obligor’s assets to a certain obligee as payment in kind or as a collateral, it would immediately compromise the obligee’s interests and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the obligees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da85161, Sept. 10, 2009). Thus, even if the instant split-off agreement, as alleged by the Defendant, had the substance of payment in kind with the obligor’s debt repayment against the Defendant, the instant split-off agreement would constitute a fraudulent act against the obligees, including the Plaintiff, and in light of the above excess of the obligation, this case’s split-off agreement would have sufficiently been ratified to the effect that the joint collateral against the other creditors is reduced by the agreement in this case’s split-off, and the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

(b) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

(i) the method of reinstatement;

In cases where a third party acquires a mortgage, superficies, etc. after a fraudulent act, the creditor may seek compensation equivalent to the value thereof against the beneficiary instead of returning the original property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54978, Dec. 7, 2006).

Since the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed on May 29, 2015 after the instant partition consultation regarding the instant real estate, the restoration of the instant real estate to the original state is based on the method of compensation for value.

2) Scope of restitution

As of the date of closing argument of this case, the portion of fraudulent act among the split-off consultation of this case is equivalent to 2/11 of the real estate of this case, which is the share of this case, and as of the date of the closing argument of this case, the value of the real estate of this case is KRW 00,000,000 (the value of the real estate of this case is KRW 00,000,000,000,000 won (the value of the real estate of this case is KRW 2/11,000,000,000 won). It is obvious that the amount of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim exceeds this amount.

Therefore, the instant partition agreement shall be revoked within the scope of 2/11 of the share out of the instant real estate corresponding to the shares of the BB, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 00,000,000 with compensation for damages to its original state and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.